Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/
This is the post-print, accepted version of this article. Published as: Scott-Parker, Bridie and Watson, Barry and King, Mark J. (2009) Understanding the psychosocial factors influencing the risky behaviour of young drivers. Transportation Research. Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12(6). pp. 470-482.
© Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1
Title:
Understanding the Psychosocial Factors Influencing the Risky Behaviour of Young
Drivers
Names and Affiliations:
Bridie Scott-Parkerª, B. Psychology (Honours)
Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety - Queensland (CARRS-Q)
Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
Victoria Park Road
KELVIN GROVE QLD 4059
AUSTRALIA
Ph 61-7 3138 7727
Fax 61-7 3138 0111
Email [email protected]
Prof Barry Watsonb, PhD
Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety - Queensland (CARRS-Q)
Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
Victoria Park Road
KELVIN GROVE QLD 4059
AUSTRALIA
Ph 61-7 3138 4955
2
Fax 61-7 3138 4907
Email [email protected]
Mark King PhDb, Lecturer,
Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety - Queensland (CARRS-Q)
Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
Victoria Park Road
KELVIN GROVE QLD 4059
AUSTRALIA
Ph 61-7 3138 4546
Fax 61-7 3138 4907
Email [email protected]
Corresponding Author: Bridie Scott-Parker (PhD Candidate, QUT)
Abstract:
Young people aged 17-24 years are at high risk of being killed in road crashes around
the world. Road safety interventions consider some influences upon young driver
behaviour; for example, imposing passenger restrictions on young novice drivers
indirectly minimises the potential negative social influences of peers as passengers. To
change young driver risky behaviour, the multitude of psychosocial influences upon its
initiation and maintenance must be identified. A study questionnaire was developed to
investigate the relationships between risky driving and Akers’ social learning theory,
social identity theory, and thrill seeking variables. The questionnaire was completed by
3
165 participants (105 women, 60 men) residing in south-east Queensland, Australia.
The sociodemographic variables of age, gender, and exposure explained 19% of the
variance in self-reported risky driving behaviour, whilst Akers’ social learning variables
explained an additional 42%. Thrill seeking and social identity variables did not explain
any significant additional variance. Significant predictors of risky driving included
imitation of the driving behaviours of, and rewards and punishments administered by,
parents and peers. Road safety policy that directly considers and incorporates these
factors in their design, implementation, and enforcement of young driver road safety
interventions should prove more efficacious than current approaches.
Keywords:
Social Learning Theory, Social Identity Theory, Young Drivers, Risky Driving, Road
Safety
4
Understanding the Psychosocial Factors Influencing
the Risky Behaviour of Young Drivers
1. Introduction
The overrepresentation of young drivers in motor vehicle crashes is a persistent
global road safety problem (Doherty, Andrey, & MacGregor, 1998) that was recognised
more than half a century ago (Chliaoutakis, Darviri, & Demakakos, 1999). Car crashes
are the leading cause of death for persons aged 15-24, who constituted 10% of the
population in OECD countries in 2004, but represented 27% of all crash fatalities
(OECD, 2006). Young drivers also tend to engage in risky behaviours (Durkin, 1995),
for example young males report that speeding is a normal non-serious behaviour (Rothe,
1987b, as cited in Harre, Field, & Kirkwood, 1996). Whilst gaining a driver’s licence is
generally seen as a developmental rite of passage (Freund & Martin, 2002), safety
concerns have led to 1 in 5 parents reporting attempts to delay their children obtaining a
learner’s permit (Sherman, Lapidus, Gelven, & Banco, 2004).
Epidemiological studies (e.g., ATSB, 2004a) from around the world have
repeatedly demonstrated that crash risks are highest for the youngest drivers who are
twice as likely to be killed as older drivers (OECD, 2006). Young passengers contribute
half of all vehicle occupant deaths amongst this age group (Williams & Wells, 1995). A
number of factors consistently emerge in the international literature as contributors to
young driver crashes. Driver characteristics contributing to young driver crashes include
age (e.g., TAC, 2007), gender (e.g., ATSB, 2004a), licence status (e.g., Lam, 2003),
driving experience (e.g., Berg, Eliasson, Palmkvist, & Gregersen, 1999), consumption
of alcohol (e.g., Isaac, Kennedy, & Graham, 1995), fatigue (e.g., Queensland Transport,
5
2005), inattention (e.g., Zhang, Fraser, Lindsay, Clarke, & Mao, 1998), and not wearing
seat belts (e.g., Begg & Langley, 2000). Influential passenger variables are the age (e.g.,
Miller, Spicer, & Lestina, 1998), gender (e.g., Williams & Wells, 1995), and the
number of passengers (e.g., Miller et al., 1998).
2. Relevant Theoretical Perspectives
It is apparent that young driver crashes arise from a multitude of variables, the
majority of which involve volitional factors. Throughout the young drivers’ lifetime,
they are exposed to numerous powerful influences on driving attitudes and behaviours.
These include parents, peers, schoolmates, and workmates (James, 2002), whose
influence is mediated by further variables, for example, the behaviour of young drivers
is likely to reflect that of their same-sex parent (Taubman-Ben-Ari, Mikulincer, &
Gillath, 2005). Entrenchment of attitudes and motivations regarding road use are
apparent long before obtaining a driver’s licence (Boyes & Litke, 2002; Carcary, 2002).
Adolescence is also a period characterised by developmental changes (of a
physiological, cognitive, behavioural, and social nature) during which youths increase
their reliance on peers in forming attitudes and behaviours (Sharpley, 2003). Road crash
statistics indicate that as adolescents mature, deaths and fatalities decrease, reflecting
physical and psychological maturation, the assumption of culturally- and age-
appropriate behaviours (Jessor, Turbin, & Costa, 1997), and diminishing susceptibility
to the negative influences of young passengers (Engstrom, 2003). In an attempt to
ameliorate the pervasive problem of young driver risky behaviour, it is important that
research into the psychosocial influences upon risky driving be informed by relevant
psychological theory. Relevant psychological theory that has the potential to make a
6
contribution includes Akers’ differential-association-reinforcement theory and social
identity theory. In addition, thrill seeking in the driving context has also been shown to
be predictive of the risky behaviour of young people.
2.1. Differential-Association-Reinforcement Theory (Akers’ Social Learning Theory)
Akers’ differential-association-reinforcement theory (herein referred to as
Akers’ social learning theory, consistent with current psychological practice) extends
Bandura’s social learning theory principles (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 2003) within the
criminological domain. The theory was developed to account for the persistent finding
that youth are more likely to indulge in proscribed behaviour if they differentially
associate with peers who are accepting of and/or promote such deviance (Akers, Krohn,
Lanza-Kaduce, & Radosevich, 1979; Hochstetler, Copes, & DeLisi, 2002). Normative
definitions¹ are influenced by significant others and represent the individual’s general
and more specific beliefs about socially- and culturally-appropriate rules and values.
The duration, intensity, frequency, and priority of differential association with parents
and peers with whom adolescents interact varies, with greater association leading to
greater influence. Whilst initial behaviour is primarily learned via imitation, continuing
behaviours are influenced by differential reinforcement, which is the balance of actual
and perceived reinforcement. Rewards – which include social and non-social sources of
rewards – are likely to increase the frequency of the behaviour. Conversely,
punishments – similarly from social and non-social sources – are likely to reduce the
frequency of the behaviour (Akers & Sellers, 2004; Brezina & Piquero, 2003).
The constructs within Akers’ social learning theory are traditionally measured as
composite scales comprising a number of items exploring the variables of interest, with
7
the data first being subjected to a descriptive analysis via correlations, following which
multiple regression analyses are undertaken. Self-report questionnaires are typically
used (e.g., see Akers et al., 1979) in which the participant ranks the frequency of the
behaviour under investigation (e.g., ‘how often do you use alcohol’ scaled from ‘never’
to ‘nearly every day’). Imitation is gauged by exploring the models liked by the
participant, and by measuring the favourable and unfavourable attitudes of the
participant and their imitated models measured. Differential association is measured by
the participant scaling the perceived favourable, unfavourable and neutral attitudes held
by these significant models. Differential reinforcement is quantified by exploring the
social and non-social rewards received from performing the risky behaviour, as well as
the social (including legal) and non-social punishment.
Akers’ social learning theory has been used in a number of studies to explain
risky behaviours among adolescent populations (Shinew & Parry, 2005). It has often
been found to be better than other theoretical models in explaining substantial variance
in deviant behaviour, for example accounting for 41% of variance in adolescent
smoking (Krohn, Skinner, Massey, & Akers, 1985), 68% of marijuana and 55% of
alcohol use (Akers et al., 1979), and 67% of variance in Korean adolescent’s substance
use (Hwang & Akers, 2003). Differential association with peers has consistently
emerged as the strongest predictor of adolescent psycho-active substance use in Italian
populations (Bonino, Cattelino, & Ciairino, 2005), and the differential association
variable ‘change in friends’ was the only significant predictor of smoking cessation in
more than 300 adolescent New Jersey residents (Chen, White, & Pandina, 2001).
Whilst the normative social influence of parents and peers upon the seat belt use
of Spanish young drivers has been recognised (Gras, Cunill, Sullman, Planes, & Font-
8
Mayolas, 2007), there has been limited but promising application of the social learning
constructs within the realm of road safety. DiBlasio (1987) reported that differential
association with peers, differential reinforcements, modelling, and attitudes favouring
risky behaviour significantly predicted whether a sample of American youths aged less
than 15 years travelled as passengers of drinking drivers. Watson (2004) reported that
differential association was the predominant psychosocial influence upon the intentions
of 309 suspended and disqualified adult Australians to drive whilst unlicensed, with
prediction based on Akers’ social learning variables being superior to prediction based
on deterrence theory for the most non-compliant participants. Fleiter, Watson and Lewis
(2006) reported that Akers’ social learning variables significantly explained speeding
behaviour over and above the explanatory contribution of deterrence theory in 320
Australian adults aged 17 to 79 years. Moreover, a study of the drug driving behaviour
of Queensland university students aged 17 to 56 years found that drug driving was
positively correlated with social rewards and negatively correlated with social
punishments (Armstrong, Wills, & Watson, 2005).
These findings support Akers’ assertion that his theory is a comprehensive
model which encapsulates many psychosocial influences (Akers et al., 1979). As such it
appears a potentially useful model to examine the self-reported risky behaviours
amongst young Australian drivers aged 17 to 24 years. In addition, a number of other
psychosocial theories may be used to understand how parents and peers influence the
risky behaviour of young drivers. Notwithstanding Akers’ claim of a comprehensive
theory, it would also be valuable to consider other factors that would uniquely apply to
this group, such as social identity theory, capturing the influences at a social level, and
thrill seeking in the driving domain, capturing the influences at a personal level. The
9
inclusion of these theories within the scope of the research provides an opportunity to
examine how comprehensive Akers’ theory is, and if these theories apply to the young
driver. Accordingly theories such as social identity theory and thrill seeking in the
driving context shall also be explored.
2.2. Social Identity Theory (SIT)
Social identity theory (SIT) asserts that in order to maintain positive self-esteem
and social identity as a member of a certain group, an individual makes inter- and intra-
group comparisons across important salient dimensions of attitudes, behaviours, and
other characteristics that favour the individual belonging to that group (Tajfel & Turner,
2003; Tarrant et al., 2001). Identity is therefore constructed through self-categorisation
and internalisation of group norms, attitudes, and behaviour standards (Tajfel & Turner,
2003). Identity development is evident across the lifespan (Erikson, 1968, cited in Nash
& Brinker, 2002; Jaccard, Blanton, & Dodge, 2005), and group membership and
identification is often central to this (Boyes & Litke, 2002; Heaven, Caputi, Trivellion-
Scott, & Swinton, 2000). Social identity theory (SIT) posits that social identity, peers,
and impression management efforts become a priority for the adolescent (Tajfel &
Turner, 2003), which may be inconsistent with safe driving behaviour. Given that the
majority of young driver crashes result from risky behaviours and attitudes (see Evans,
1991), SIT offers potential benefits in enhancing our understanding of the variables
influencing young drivers aged 17-24 years.
The interaction between identity and road use has been previously recognised in
the literature (Fletcher, 1997). Young drivers know what they should do on the road to
be safe (e.g., Falk & Montgomery, 2007; Tuohy & Stradling, 1992, cited in Clarke,
10
Ward, & Truman, 2005) however they are willing to modify their behaviours to fit in
with desirable social groups (Brown & Lohr, 1987; Hogg & Williams, 2000; O’Connell,
2002). Young drivers also report their self-esteem is inextricably intertwined with their
self-perceptions of themselves as drivers (Falk & Montgomery, 2007), with potential
embarrassment and social disapproval being powerful influences upon compliance. For
males in particular (Bonino et al., 2005) the more cohesive the group, for example a car
full of male friends, the greater the group pressure to conform (Zimbardo & Leippe,
1991). Social identity theory has not been utilised to explore young driver behaviour,
although it has been applied to risky adolescent behaviour such as smoking (Kobus,
2003; Stewart-Knox et al., 2005) and drinking (Scheier & Botvin, 1997), prior research
within the social identity domain including ethnographic studies utilising grounded
theory (e.g., Wiltshire, Bancroft, Amos, & Parry, 2001, cited in Stewart-Knox et al.,
2005), and individual interviews (Stewart-Knox et al., 2005).
There are a number of conceptual similarities between Akers’ social learning
theory and SIT, including the young driver associating with friends who act as models
of attitudes and behaviours, and who can reinforce the attitudes and behaviours of the
young driver through social punishments and rewards. From an Akers’ social learning
perspective, it appears that it is the frequency, priority, duration and intensity of the
differential association with friends that influences the young driver’s behaviour (Akers
et al., 1979). From a SIT perspective, it appears that it is the young person’s sense of
‘social belongingness’ to this peer group which is particularly important to and
therefore influential over the young driver. It could be asserted that this social
belongingness, captured as group identity in the research, is encapsulated within Akers’
social learning theory, however this remains unclear. Accordingly, to more fully
11
investigate the relative utility of different theoretical perspectives, and in particular to
determine whether Akers’ social learning theory indeed is as comprehensive as
purported by Akers, the influence of SIT on young driver behaviour will be explored as
a separate ‘group identity’ construct.
2.3. Thrill Seeking
Young people tend to report that driving serves many purposes, apart from
efficient and economical transport, which can impact upon road safety (Cavallo,
Montero, Sangster, & Maunders, 1997). These include skilful graduation to adulthood
(Smith, 1997); status in front of peers and the opposite sex (Deery, 1999); and
autonomy and control (Boyes & Litke, 2002). Of particular concern is sensation seeking
behaviour (see Jonah, 1997, for a review), such as expressing feelings of excitement,
anger, and frustration (Arnett, Offer, & Fine, 1997; Sullman, 2006) and competitiveness
(Ulleberg, 2002). Thrill seeking was the stated cause of the behaviours for which one in
four Australian young drivers were fined (Ross & Guarnieri, 1994, cited in Cavallo et
al., 1997), and has consistently been found to be associated with risky driving, offences
and crashes (Rimmo & Aberg, 1999). Recently a number of researchers have focused
on the driving-specific dimensions of sensation seeking measured by the Thrill Seeking
Scale (Lawton, Parker, Manstead, & Stradling, 1997), which has been found to predict
risky driving behaviour in young adults (e.g., Bates, Watson, & King, 2009).
Accordingly the person-related variable of sensation seeking in the research has been
conceptualised as the young person’s thrill seeking behaviour in the driving context,
rather than the more broad personality traits of impulsivity and sensation seeking
frequently utilised in research into driver behaviour. In addition, recent Australian
12
research has also shown that thrill seeking correlates highly with the non-social rewards
inherent in the differential reinforcement construct, suggesting that the influences of
thrill seeking may also be encapsulated within Akers’ social learning model (Fleiter et
al., 2006). To more fully investigate this supposition, the influence of thrill seeking on
young driver behaviour will also be investigated.
3. Study Objectives
The current study was designed to explore the sociodemographic and
psychosocial factors influencing the risky behaviour of young drivers. The influence of
various psychosocial variables encapsulated within Akers’ social learning theory, the
group identity variable of SIT, and driving-specific thrill seeking upon the self-reported
risky driving behaviour of young drivers will be examined. It is hypothesised that the
sociodemographic variables of age², gender, and driving exposure will significantly
predict the risky driving of young drivers (Hypothesis 1). It is hypothesised that the
variables within Akers’ social learning model will significantly predict the risky driving
of young drivers over and above the participant’s sociodemographic characteristics
(Hypothesis 2). It is further hypothesised that whilst group identity and thrill seeking in
isolation may be predictive of risky driving, they will not add to the variance in
prediction of risky driving over and above the social learning variables (Hypothesis 3).
In addition, a number of exploratory analyses stemming from the hypotheses will be
undertaken to investigate any differences in predictors for male and female drivers.
4. Method
4.1. Preliminary Qualitative Research
13
A preliminary study was undertaken to inform the design of the items to be used
in the main study. Fourteen young drivers (8 male, 6 female) aged 17-24 years (mean
age = 19.2 years) were recruited through convenience sampling of friends and
acquaintances of the researcher. A semi-structured questionnaire guided the 20-minute
informal small group interview held in the home of the researcher or the volunteer.
Example questions include ‘Have your friends ever made fun of your driving? If so,
when, where, and why?’ and ‘If you do something in the car your parents don’t like,
how do they react?’ Of note, a majority of participants (n = 12) reported their main
concern when driving was the number of points on the licences of themselves and their
friends, and that the legality of their behaviour was only considered when a large
number of demerit points had accumulated. The draft questionnaire was subsequently
modified to incorporate four items relating to police punishment of risky driving. The
age-appropriateness of the language to be used was also checked, with terms such as
“racing around on the roads” used in item 30 taken directly from the participants’
responses.
4.2. Main Study
4.2.1. Participants
One hundred and sixty-five licensed drivers (105 women and 60 men) aged 17-
24 years (M = 19.65 years, SD = 2.10) who had a drivers licence volunteered to
participate in the study. Sixty-one participants were psychology undergraduates at the
Queensland University of Technology, and they were granted course credit for their
participation. Eighty-six participants were students of other faculties and members of
the public recruited via convenience sampling of friends, relatives, and work colleagues.
14
Eighteen participants were recruited from the local Government Driver Licensing centre
with Departmental permission.
4.2.2. Design
The study utilised a cross-sectional survey design involving the collection of a
range of self-report data. The main dependent variable was participant ‘self-reported
risky driving behaviour’, further validated by measuring self-reported ‘crashes’ and
‘offences’ within the previous three years. The main independent variables included the
sociodemographic variables of participant age, gender and driving exposure measured
as the number of hours spent driving each week (‘exposure’). The independent variables
comprising the social learning psychosocial constructs were measured as ‘personal
attitudes’ towards driving; ‘differential association’; ‘anticipated punishment’,
‘anticipated rewards’, and ‘imitation’ of parents and peers. ‘Group identity’ measured
the priority of social identification within the psychosocial construct of SIT; and the
propensity for ‘thrill seeking’ by young drivers measured the thrill seeking construct
within the driving context.
4.2.3. Materials
The study utilised a self-administered questionnaire which was informed by the
findings of the literature review and the group interviews with young drivers. Section I
measured driver age, gender, and driving exposure including the type and age of the
vehicle driven. Section II measured the number and type of traffic offences and car
crashes that the participants had been involved in during the last three years. To assess
thrill seeking, section III comprised a nine-item thrill seeking scale (Lawton et al.,
1997) exploring the feelings and emotions associated with driving. The participants
15
were required to rank their responses to items such as “I get a real thrill out of driving
fast” on a Likert scale of 1 (‘not at all’) to 6 (‘very much’).
Section IV incorporated 70 items that explored the attitudes, behaviour and the
social learning experiences of the young driver via a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(‘strongly disagree’) to 7 (‘strongly agree’). Current risky driving behaviours were
assessed using eight items such as Item 19: “I drive around a lot and I don’t really care
if I follow the road rules”, and others items exploring common high risk behaviours
such as speeding and drinking before driving. Higher scores on the self-reported risky
driving behaviour scale correspond to more risky driving. Personal attitudes towards
driving were assessed using eight items, higher scores on the personal attitudes scale
corresponding to more risky personal attitudes towards driving. Item 27: “Cars should
give way to me – I am the better driver” was included as young drivers consistently
overestimate their driving ability and capacity for control, particularly when speeding
(Harrison, Triggs, & Pronk, 1999).
The attitudes of others that are perceived by the young driver that constitute the
normative dimension of Akers’ social learning theory were explored via 16 items
summed into a composite differential association scale. Items such as Item 11: “My
parents wouldn’t like the way I drive with friends in the car” were purpose-designed and
modelled on the results of the preliminary research and prior studies (e.g., DiBlasio,
1987; Lang, Waller, & Shope, 1996; Regan & Mitsopolous, 2001). Higher scores
correspond to the perception that the significant persons in the young driver’s life –
their parents and peers – have attitudes and norms that favour risky driving in the young
driver. Imitation of peers and parents fundamental to Akers’ social learning theory were
explored via four items. Higher scores correspond to more imitation by the young driver
16
of risky driving that was modelled by their parents and peers. Item 24: “I’ve copied lots
of cool tricks in the car from my friends, and they think it’s great” was included as
conformity and approval (Zimbardo & Leippe, 1991) have consistently been found to be
a powerful influence upon adolescent behaviour.
The anticipated rewards administered by parents and peers inherent to Akers’
social learning theory were assessed through a composite of eight items. Item 29: “My
mates and I talk for ages about really cool risky things I have done in the car”, was
designed to capture young drivers verifying their status amongst their peers (Tarrant et
al., 2001), found in this and other study’s group interviews (Moller, 2004). Higher
scores indicate that more rewards are anticipated from parents and peers for risky
driving. Anticipated punishments by peers, parents, and police were assessed via four
items each combined into a composite of 12 purpose-designed items. Item 40: “My
mates make fun of me when I don’t show off” was specifically included as teasing is
one of the most common forms of adolescent punishment reported in the literature (e.g.,
Vanzetti & Duck, 1996) and in the preliminary group interviews. Higher scores on this
scale indicate that the participant anticipates a higher likelihood of punishment from
parents, peers, and police for risky driving.
The importance to – and therefore influence of – group identity with a
significant peer group as a measure of SIT belongingness is explored via six items.
Young drivers commonly report a lack of control over their own driving behaviour
(e.g., Regan & Mitsopolous, 2001). Item 42: “It’s more important to me to fit in with
my friends and do the things they want me to even if I don’t want to” is indicative of
youth anxious to please their friends (Parker, Manstead, Stradling, Reason, & Baxter,
17
1992) and was also found in the group interviews. Higher scores indicate that the young
driver identifies more strongly with the unsafe influences of their significant peer group.
Forty items within the scales specifically examined driver behaviour when
passengers were present in the vehicle contributing half of all scales such as the risky
driving behaviour scale³. Young drivers are more likely to carry passengers than to
travel alone; therefore items such as number 22 “I am especially careful driving friends
at night” were specifically included, this item forming part of the self-reported risky
driving behaviour scale. Eight scales were created from the responses to these items,
and Table 1 details the driving-related concepts explored, number of items within and
the Cronbach’s alpha for each scale.
4.2.4. Procedure
The questionnaires were distributed to participants at University lectures, the
Government Driver Licensing Centre, and the workplace and social gatherings of the
primary researcher. The questionnaire required approximately 25 minutes to complete,
and withdrawal from the study was permitted at any time. No identifying information
was included in the questionnaire ensuring confidentiality of responses. Strategies used
to increase response rates included announcements at University lectures, course credit,
telephone calls and personal visits to collect completed questionnaires. Newly-returned
questionnaires were shuffled amongst those completed earlier in order to not
compromise the anonymity of the participants (particularly since some were known to
the primary researcher). Whilst this strategy preserved the anonymity of the
participants, it precluded subsequent comparisons of the different participant groups. Of
the 480 questionnaires distributed, 165 were returned, representing a response rate of
34.4% (43.6% for females, 25.2% for males).
18
4.2.5. Statistical Analyses
The study utilised bivariate correlations to explore the strength of association
between all dependent and independent variables (Howell, 1997). Bivariate correlations
between continuous variables utilised Pearson’s product moment correlation (r);
bivariate correlations between continuous and dichotomous variables utilised point
biserial correlations (rpb); and bivariate correlations between dichotomous variables
utilised the phi coefficient (Φ) (Cohen, 1996). Hierarchical multiple regression (HMR)
was used to allow control over the order in which the theoretically-relevant variables
were entered into the regression equations. A minimum sample size of n ≥ 50 + 8m
(where m = number of independent variables) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996) is required
for a preferred power of 80%, and to detect a medium effect size of .20. Unless
otherwise stated sample size requirements were met. All analyses were conducted using
the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 15.0 and were evaluated
at a significance level of α = .05. Scale and subscale reliability analyses used
Cronbach’s alpha.
5. Results
5.1. Data Cleaning and Manipulation
Estimated marginal means for the entire sample replaced missing values within
the participant driving exposure measures in Section I. Missing values were found to be
missing completely at random (MCAR) (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). One
univariate outlier (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996) and three participants who failed to
respond to more than 30% of Section IV were excluded from the analysis. Individual
responses were used to replace missing values within Section IV, and participant
19
responses to the remaining scale items were averaged to provide the missing values to
reflect accurate individual perceptions. Assumptions of regression including normality,
linearity and homoscedasticity were not met by the raw data, and logarithmic
transformations undertaken on all scales to correct negative skew greater than 1
remedied these violations (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The logarithmic transformations
also remedied kurtosis evident in the raw data. Tests of regression assumptions
confirmed bivariate linearity and homoscedasticity of residuals were acceptable. No
multicollinearity was in evidence. The Cronbach’s alphas shown in Table 1 of the scales
measuring risky driving, personal attitudes, differential association, anticipated rewards,
thrill seeking, and group identity were characterised by acceptable Cronbach’s alphas of
greater than .70. The remaining scales originally had unacceptable Cronbach’s alphas,
and upon exclusion of various items for their poor contribution to internal reliability, the
majority of these improved considerably. However the relatively poor Cronbach’s alpha
could not be improved for imitation and anticipated punishment.
5.2. Descriptive Statistics
Of the 60 male and 101 female participants, 58 were aged 17-18 years, 47 were
19-20, 36 were 21-22, and 20 were aged 23-24 years. Males reported more hours spent
driving each week (M = 14.20 hours, SD = 11.59) than females (M = 9.39 hours, SD =
11.42). As can be seen in Table 2, driving more each week was significantly associated
with more risky driving. Males were more likely to report risky driving than females
(although this relationship did not remain significant in the subsequent regression, once
age and exposure were controlled for). There are also strong positive correlations
between risky driving and each of differential association, personal attitudes, imitation,
20
anticipated rewards, thrill seeking, and group identity, indicating that scoring more
highly (that is more riskily) on each of these scales is associated with more self-reported
risky driving. More anticipated punishment was associated with less risky driving.
These significant correlations confirmed that all the independent variables of interest
were significantly correlated with the main dependent variable of self-reported risky
driving behaviour and therefore warranted inclusion in the regression analyses.
One third of drivers reported being detected for an offence, and one in five
reported crashing their car, in the previous three years. Most offences and crashes
occurred when participants were travelling home (one third of first offences and
crashes) and going to work (a quarter of crashes). Crashes and offences reported in the
study also partly confirmed the validity of the self-report measure of risky driving, and a
complex relationship between risky behaviour, crashes and offences emerged, the
bivariate correlations of which are depicted in Table 3. Self-reported risky driving
behaviour was not significantly correlated with crashes; however it was significantly
positively correlated with committing an offence, and offending whilst carrying
passengers. Both committing an offence and offending whilst carrying passengers were
significantly correlated with being involved in a crash and crashing whilst carrying
passengers, with 53% of those being detected for an offence also reporting a crash.
Those detected for an offence also scored more highly on thrill seeking than those
reporting no offence.
5.3. Hypothesis Testing
To test Hypothesis 1, the sociodemographic variables of age, gender, and
exposure were entered as the first step in the HMR. The social learning variables of
21
imitation, anticipated punishments and rewards, differential association, and personal
attitudes were entered at the second step as a test of Hypothesis 2, and thrill seeking and
group identity variables were entered at step three to test Hypothesis 3. As shown in
Table 4, the overall model was significant, F (10, 150) = 24.18, p < .001). The first step
accounted for 19% of the variance in risky driving (F (3, 157) = 12.31, p < .001). The
second step accounted for a significant additional 42% (ΔR2 = .42) of variance in risky
driving (F (5, 152) = 32.79, p < .001). The third step was nonsignificant (F (2, 150) =
1.31, p = .27), accounting for less than 1% of variance in risky driving (ΔR2 = .01). No
significant individual predictors emerged in step 1. Of the variables entered in step 2,
imitation, anticipated rewards, and anticipated punishment emerged as significant
predictors of risky driving. This revealed that the more the young driver imitated
significant others’ risky driving, and the more rewards and less punishments they
anticipated for doing so, the more risky their reported driving became. The strongest
predictor was anticipated rewards (β = .23) which accounted for 2% of unique variance
in risky driving, closely followed by imitation (β = .21, unique variance = 3%), and
anticipated punishment (β = -.20, unique variance = 2%). The step three variables of
thrill seeking and group identity did not emerge as significant predictors.
To investigate Akers’ assertions of a comprehensive theory, an additional
analysis was undertaken in which the order the predictors were entered in the HMR was
changed, with thrill seeking and group identity entered at step two, and the social
learning variables entered at step 3. When this was done, thrill seeking and group
identity in step two accounted for an additional 15% (ΔR2 = .15), whereas the social
learning variables in step three subsequently accounted for an additional 27% (ΔR2 =
.27), of variance in risky driving, supporting Akers’ assertions.
22
Given the differences between the sexes apparent in the literature review, two
additional HMR were undertaken for exploratory purposes, operationalising the same
variables for each gender. Step 1 again included the sociodemographic variables of age,
gender, and driving exposure; Step 2 included the imitation, anticipated punishments
and rewards, differential association, and personal attitude variables of Akers’ social
learning theory; and Step 3 included the thrill seeking and group identity variables.
Significant models emerged for both females (F (9, 91) = 17.39, p < .001), and males (F
(9, 50) = 8.32, p < .001), accounting for 60% and 53% of variance in risky driving
respectively. Interestingly the significant predictors that emerged for each sex differed.
The only significant predictor for males was anticipated rewards, whilst for females it
included greater driving exposure, personal attitudes, anticipated rewards, and imitation
variables. In addition, for females, identifying with a peer group corresponded to less
risky driving. It is important to note however that the sample sizes for the gender
analysis were not large enough to maintain adequate power to detect a medium effect
size at an alpha level of .05 (females: n = 101, males: n = 60), therefore these findings
are suggestive at best.
6. Discussion
6.1. Support for Hypotheses
There was strong support for all hypotheses within the study. Nineteen percent
of the variance in risky driving was explained by gender, age, and exposure (Hypothesis
1); the variables within Akers’ social learning theory significantly predicted an
additional 42% of variance in risky driving (Hypothesis 2); and group identity and thrill
seeking did not emerge as significant predictors over and above Akers’ model and
23
sociodemographic variables (Hypothesis 3). Subsequent exploratory analysis revealed
that significant predictors for males included anticipated rewards; for females, exposure,
personal attitudes, imitation, anticipated rewards, and group identity were significant
predictors.
6.2. Theoretical implications
The psychosocial constructs within Akers’ social learning theory have not
previously been applied to young drivers, and the findings of the current study provide
strong support for doing so. The amount of variance in young driver risky behaviour
explained by the traditional applications of age, gender, and exposure influences was
more than tripled when social learning variables were included. Moreover, the social
learning variables explained significantly more influence upon risky driving than group
identity and thrill seeking in the current study. These findings suggest for this study at
least that the influences of thrill seeking and group identity were partly or wholly
captured within the social learning variables in accordance with Akers’ assertions. The
reliability of two psychosocial scales was less than ideal; however it is noteworthy that
this was the first application of such theoretical constructs to the risky behaviour of
young drivers. Theoretically-sound items were created in attempts to operationalise the
relevant construct, utilising age-appropriate language and experiences and attitudes
reported by the participants of the preliminary focus groups. Future applications are
expected to further refine item content and accordingly improve scale internal
consistency. Notwithstanding some alpha insufficiencies, the study findings provide
additional support for the operationalisation of Akers’ social learning theory within the
realm of young drivers’ road safety.
24
6.3. Practical implications
This research was one of the first attempts to apply the social psychological
principles of Akers’ social learning theory to a persistent behavioural phenomenon that
interventions such as graduated licencing (GDL) systems (e.g., in Queensland,
Queensland Transport, 2007) have attempted to ameliorate. GDL systems are designed
to keep young drivers out of hazardous situations (Ferguson, 2003) by regulating their
exposure. This study found these variables accounted for only 19% of the variance in
young drivers’ risky behaviour. In contrast social learning variables in conjunction with
the sociodemographics of age, gender, and exposure, explained substantially more risky
behaviour by young drivers. It is noteworthy that Akers’ social learning theory
incorporates anticipated police punishments which are part of GDL systems; however
GDL systems have not fully considered the significant role that imitation and
anticipated rewards and punishments from peers and parents play in the risky behaviour
of young drivers.
To change young driver behaviour, it is essential to understand how behaviour is
initiated and maintained, and the variety and magnitude of the psychosocial influences
upon the young driver’s behaviour. Akers’ social learning theory is particularly suited to
this, highlighting numerous opportunities and avenues for intervention (Triplett &
Payne, 2004). In addition, whilst thrill seeking has repeatedly emerged as a contributor
to risky behaviour in young drivers (e.g., Rimmo & Aberg, 1999), studies exploring
only the role of thrill seeking do not explain as much variance in risky driving as the
numerous other psychosocial influences included in the current study. Accordingly,
comprehensive psychological theories such as Akers’ social learning theory reveal
potential avenues and directions for intervention (Elliott, Baughan, & Armitage, 2003),
25
including education (OECD, 2006) and enforcement (Regan & Mitsopoulos, 2001).
Young driver road safety policy to date has emerged reactively in a theoretical desert
and fundamentally this will affect its efficacy (Nash & Brinker, 2002).
Anticipated rewards consistently emerged as a significant predictor of risky
behaviour by young drivers, and this has considerable practical implications,
particularly as thrill seeking and non-social rewards are highly correlated (r = .41, p <
.001). Intervention programmes to date have not typically considered the implicit and
explicit rewards young drivers experience from risky behaviour (Falk & Montgomery,
2007), which are most influential. Passenger restrictions within GDL indirectly reduce
these rewards by initially limiting the type and number of passengers that can be carried
by the young driver (Queensland Transport, 2007). It is reasonable to suggest that
reducing the anticipated and actual rewards for risky driving behaviour by young drivers
would be associated with reductions in risky driving. Friends talking and boasting about
the risky behaviour of young drivers is not readily amenable to change, requiring
change at the broader cultural level. While it will be a challenge to directly modify the
tendency for young people to reward risky behaviour in young drivers, public and
targeted media and education campaigns, and peer programmes that discourage
rewarding risky driver behaviour as opposed to making them socially punish the risky
driver, are potential avenues for intervention. In contrast, parents who reward the young
driver by letting them use the car, and who do not exert any punishment for risky
driving, are more accessible, potential avenues for intervention. This is in accordance
with the findings of the Checkpoints program recently implemented and evaluated in
the United States, in which parents have been found to reduce the risky behaviour of
their young driver by more closely monitoring their driving behaviour and
26
administering rewards and punishments in response to their behaviour (Simons-Morton,
Hartos, Leaf, & Preusser, 2006).
Existing GDL do not consider the influence of imitation upon the risky
behaviour of young drivers, and targeted and public education campaigns for parents
and younger persons alike provide an avenue for intervention. Parents could be
encouraged to consider the role model they portray to their child and future-young-
driver in a targeted education campaign. Similarly, young people could be encouraged
to drive as a safe role model when carrying their friends in a targeted education
campaign, including encouraging them to not reinforce risky driving behaviour in their
peers. This is a viable alternative for young people who report that they would not feel
comfortable speaking against risky behaviour by the young person driving the car
(Regan & Mitsopoulos, 2001).
Road safety interventions are predominantly police-punishment based, the threat
of police detection of risky driving extensively relied upon to curtail risky young driver
behaviour. Whilst anticipated punishment was a significant predictor, young drivers are
less likely to comply with road rules (Yagil, 1998), and 80% of Californian teens report
violating GDL passenger restrictions whilst police report a lack of GDL enforcement
programmes (Rice, Peek-Asa, & Kraus, 2004). It is reasonable to assert that existing
GDL interventions such as qualified supervision, passenger restrictions and night
driving curfews may be more efficacious in the event of a targeted education and
enforcement campaign, particularly as the GDL program relies heavily upon the young
driver voluntarily complying with the restrictions associated with the various licensing
levels.
27
It is noteworthy that GDL do have requirements for supervised driving early in
the licensing phase (typically during a ‘learners’ phase), however there are no explicit
guidelines for the supervisor to be actively involved in rewarding safe driving behaviour
and attitudes whilst punishing risky driving behaviour and attitudes. In the circumstance
where the young learner driver is also carrying passengers, there are similarly no
explicit guidelines for the supervisor to intervene in the instance of unsafe driving
attitudes exhibited by the passenger(s). Moreover, it is noteworthy that the supervisor
typically is only required to have a certain amount of driving experience, such as being
licensed with an open licence. Given this specification, it is still possible for the young
novice driver to be supervised by another young driver (aged less than 25 years), and
GDL provisions do not consider the implications of this. Preliminary research also
suggests that young driver road safety programmes that consider gender differences in
psychosocial influences may be more efficacious (Lang et al., 1996), and based on the
findings of Taubman-Ben-Ari and others (2005), supervisors of a similar gender may be
more effective in curtailing young driver risky behaviour. In addition, Akers’ social
learning theory suggests potentially protective influences (Bina, Graziano, & Bonino,
2005) on young driver behaviour, for example the reduced risky behaviour associated
with females who identify with a peer group, that can also be capitalised upon in
intervention programmes.
6.4. Strengths and limitations of research
A distinct advantage of the approach taken in the study is that it is soundly based
in theory, attempting to explore the psychosocial influences upon the young driver,
rather than simply repeating the more common epidemiological method. Whilst only
28
one third of questionnaires distributed were actually completed and returned to the
researcher, this response rate is consistent with that achieved in many road safety
studies (e.g., Davey, Wishart, Freeman, & Watson, 2007). Many scales used items that
required the participant to report their perception of other’s attitudes and behaviours,
and it is these subjective perceptions that comprise the experiences of the individual
(Zimbardo & Leippe, 1991). Attempts to improve the Cronbach’s alpha for imitation
and anticipated punishment scales by deleting items that were poor contributors to
internal reliability were however only marginally successful. The items used to explore
psychosocial constructs therefore may have been flawed; numerous items may have
gauged more than one construct, or have been suitable for particular ages only.
The data used in the study were collected via self-report and may have been
subject to biases inherent in this technique, however the anonymous nature of the
questionnaire and the lack of consequences for reporting risky driving behaviour is
likely to have minimised these (Zhao et al., 2006). Minimisation of the seriousness of
crashes by young drivers became apparent during one preliminary group interview,
when a 21-year old reported he’d been hurt “a bit” in a crash and the car was not worth
fixing, yet his mother advised as the researcher was leaving that he had been on life
support in a coma for three weeks. Impression management is a common phenomenon
in young drivers (Lajunen & Summala, 2003), and these efforts and subsequent biases
may also have occurred when completing the questionnaire. The generalisability of the
findings are also limited by the number and type of participants sampled. Compared to
official driver licensing figures, the sample included an overrepresentation of female
drivers (63% of the participants were female, compared to 48% of the Queensland
young driver population at the time of the research) and drivers who were of a younger
29
age (36.4% of the participants were 17-18 years old, compared to 22.6% of the
Queensland young driver population; 34.5% of the participants were 21-24 years old,
compared to 53% of the Queensland young driver population) (Queensland Transport,
2008). Over 70% of the participants were undergraduate university students who are
likely to be of a higher socioeconomic status, and therefore may not be representative of
the general population. This research population however is commonly sampled in the
research within the field of psychology, and in the domain of road safety research in the
young driver population in particular (e.g., Glendon & Cernecca, 2003; Greening &
Stoppelbein, 2000).
6.5. Future research directions
A dearth of research into the psychosocial influences upon the young driver to
date means a wealth of potential future research that can be utilised to reduce the global
road toll of young persons. Due to practical limitations, passenger experiences and
perspectives were omitted from the current study. Future research should incorporate
the ‘driver as passenger’ (Williams, 2003); in particular exploring the phenomenon of
the unsafe young driver becoming the unsafe young passenger encountered in the
preliminary qualitative research. The role of multimedia in psychosocial development is
well-established (Vaughan & Hogg, 1998) yet relatively unexplored within young
driver road safety (ATSB, 2004b). The influence of cultural norms of risky driving as a
normal phase of development, for males in particular, in a western culture typified by
underage drinking and the use of the car as a tool of masculinity (Staysafe 18, 1990;
Zimbardo & Leippe, 1991), merits further exploration. The literature review and
preliminary analyses revealed females and males clearly use the car in different ways.
30
The widely-accepted links between male identity and driving behaviour (Fletcher, 1997)
could be further explored within the differential association construct utilised in the
present study. Identifying consistent differences between male and female young drivers
will enable the development and implementation of gender-specific road safety
interventions (Lang et al., 1996). The cohort ‘young drivers’ may require further
refinement, as the psychosocial development and needs of 17 year olds are different to
that of 24 year olds. Larger matched samples should also investigate the gender
differences that have emerged in the preliminary explorations of behaviour. As was seen
in section 3.1, differential association with peers, parents, schoolmates and workmates
varies along the dimensions of priority, frequency, duration and intensity (Akers et al.,
1979), therefore in order to refine the operationalisation of this social learning
dimension, the extent and type of contact with significant others in the participant’s life
should be quantified (Shinew & Parry, 2005).
The study utilised a cross sectional design, a common approach in psychological
research (e.g., Hwang & Akers, 2003). However longitudinal methodology may reveal
development variation in the extent and duration of the various psychosocial influences
operationalised within the study (Kobus, 2003). Such changes may also guide policies
and improve the efficacy of intervention and GDL programmes (Triplett & Payne,
2004). Moreover, group identity appears to develop and influence the genders in
different ways (Stewart-Knox et al., 2005). Personality studies have identified six
personality subtypes of young drivers (Ulleberg, 2002), also suggesting that young
drivers not be treated as a cohort and which may have ramifications for any intervention
programmes. Future studies could also include matched samples of young drivers who
have been detected for offences; those who offend regularly but have not been detected
31
as many offences remain undetected (Bina et al., 2005); and those who have crashed to
explore psychosocial influences via the social learning variables of the present study.
Objective measures such as police records can be used to verify self-reported data that is
often criticised for being subjective (Elliott et al., 2003). The current study only
comprised drivers legally using a motor vehicle, and future studies should include those
young persons who do not have a licence as unlicensed driving is a pervasive problem
(e.g., Bina et al., 2005; Watson, 2004).
7. Conclusion
Young drivers across the globe are killed and injured in motor vehicle crashes at
rates far exceeding older and more experienced drivers. This research was aimed at
studying some of the psychosocial factors which may contribute to risky driving. In this
study, the social learning constructs of imitation, anticipated punishments and rewards
emerged as significant influences on the risky behaviour of the young driver. The
practical implications of this are considerable, as intervention strategies in this area have
historically focused on the regulation and enforcement of driver behaviour. As such,
this research has identified a range of potential influences on young driver behaviour
that could be more specifically targeted in education and enforcement interventions.
32
Table 1
Scales and Cronbach’s Alpha
Scale Driving-Related Concepts
Cronbach Alpha
Number of Items
Dependent Variable
Self-reported risky driving behaviour
Current high risk driving behaviours reported by the young driver
.76 8
Independent Variables
Akers’ Social Learning Theory Personal attitudes Personal attitudes towards risky
driving behaviour .82 8
Differential association
Parents and peers attitudes towards risky driving behaviour
.79 16
Imitation Imitation of the risky driving behaviour of parents and peers
.51 3
Anticipated rewards Anticipated rewards for risky driving behaviour from parents and peers
.74 8
Anticipated punishments
Anticipated punishments for risky driving behaviour from parents, peers, and police
.62 9
Thrill Seeking in the Driving Context Thrill seeking Feelings and emotions associated
with risky driving behaviour
.91 9
Social Identity Theory Group identity The importance of identifying with a
peer group .73 4
Note. All scales have been logarithmically transformed to rectify violations of normality.
33
Table 2
Correlations with Self-Reported Risky Driving Behaviour (SRRDB)
Variable
M
SD
Correlation with SRRDB b
Age
19.65
2.10
.19*
Gender - - -.30*** Exposure ª .92 .33 .36*** Personal attitudes ª 1.12 .19 .64*** Differential association ª 1.59 .15 .66*** Imitation ª .91 .17 .58*** Anticipated rewards ª 1.25 .17 .64*** Anticipated punishment ª 1.67 .07 -.60*** Thrill seeking ª 1.43 .19 .41*** Group identity ª .76 .20 .46*** Note. ª = Logarithmically transformed; b = All correlations are measured by Pearson’s product moment (r) correlations except gender, which is measured by point biserial (rpb) correlation. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
34
Table 3
Significant Correlations amongst Crash and Offence Measures
Variable
Committed
offence
Offended with
passengers
Crashed vehicle
Crashed with passengers
Self-reported risky driving behaviour ab
.32***
.23***
.07
.05 Age b .21** .23** .19* .04 Gender c -.21** -.10 -.10 -.11 Exposure ab .23** .15 -.01 .04 Thrill seeking ab .25** .17* .10 -16* Committed offence c - -.52*** .20* .18* Offended with passengers c - .24*** .24** Crashed vehicle c - .69*** Crashed with passengers c - Note. ª = Logarithmically transformed; b = Correlations are measured by using point biserial rpb correlation; c = Correlations are measured by using phi Φ coefficient. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
35
Table 4
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results
Variables M SD B SE β
sr2 R2 Adj R2 ΔR2
Step 1
Gender 1.63 .49 .03 .02 .08 Age 19.66 2.10 .01 .01 .06 Exposure ª .91 .32 .05 .03 .09 .19*** .18 Step 2 Differential association ª
1.60 .14 .19 .12 .15
Personal attitudes ª
1.13 .18 .15 .09 .15
Imitation ª .91 .17 .22** .07 .21 .03 Anticipated rewards ª
1.25 .17 .25** .08 .23 .02
Anticipated punishment ª
1.67 .07 -.51* .21 -.20 .02
.61*** .59 .42 Step 3 . Thrill seeking ª 1.43 .19 .07 .06 .07 Group identity ª .76 .20 -.07 .06 -.07 .62 .59 .01 Note. ª = Logarithmically transformed. The overall model was significant, F (10, 150) = 24.18, p < .001. The first step (F (3, 157) = 12.31, p < .001) and second steps were significant (F (5, 152) = 32.79, p < .001). The third step was nonsignificant (F (2, 150) = 1.31, p = .27). * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
36
Acknowledgments
This research was undertaken with the assistance of a bursary from the Centre for
Accident Research and Road Safety, Queensland (CARRS-Q), and a Manuscript
Completion Grant from the Institute for Health and Biomedical Innovation (IHBI),
Queensland University of Technology, Carseldine, Queensland.
37
References
Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant behaviour: A specific test of a general learning theory. American Sociological Review, 44, 636-655. Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2004). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publications. Armstrong, K., Wills, A., & Watson, B. (2005). Psychosocial influences on young
Australian drivers. Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference. Wellington, New Zealand.
Arnett, J. J., Offer, D., & Fine, M. A. (1997). Reckless driving in adolescence: ‘State’ and ‘trait’ factors. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, 57-63. ATSB. (2004a). Road Deaths, Australia. 2004 Statistical summary. Canberra: Australian Transport Safety Bureau. ATSB. (2004b). Road safety in Australia. A publication commemorating World Health Day 2004. Canberra: Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (2003). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. In M. A. Hogg (Ed.), Social Psychology: Vol 2. Social interaction. (pp.
191-208). London: Sage. (Original work published 1963). Bates, L., Watson, B., & King, M. (2009). Factors influencing learner driver
experiences. Canberra: Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Begg, D. J., & Langley, J. D. (2000). Seat belt use and related behaviours among young adults. Journal of Safety Research, 31, 211-220. Berg, H.-Y., Eliasson, K., Palmkvist, J., & Gregersen, N. P. (1999). Learner drivers and
lay instruction – how socio-economic standing and lifestyle are reflected in driving practice from the age of 16. Transportation Research Part F, 2, 167- 179.
Bina, M., Graziano, F., & Bonino, S. (2005). Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38, 472-481. Bonino, S., Cattelino, E., & Ciairano, S. (2005). Adolescents and risk. Behavior, functions, and protective factors. Springer-Verlag Italia: Milan. Boyes, M. & Litke, P. (2002). Driving identities over the lifespan: Codes for the road. In J. P. Rothe (Ed.), Driving Lessons: Exploring systems that make traffic safer (pp. 97-104). Alberta: University of Alberta.
Brezina, T., & Piquero, A. R. (2003). Exploring the relationship between social and
38
non-social reinforcement in the context of social learning theory. In R. L. Akers and G. F. Jenson (Eds.), Social learning theory and the explanation of crime: A guide for the new century (pp. 265-288). New Jersey: Transaction. Brown, B. B., & Lohr, M. J. (1987). Peer-group affiliation and adolescent self-esteem: An integration of ego-identity and symbolic-interaction theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 47-55. Carcary, B. (2002). New driver project. In Behavioural research in road safety. Eleventh seminar (pp. 178-183). London: Department of Transport. Cavallo, A., Montero, K., Sangster, J., & Maunders, D. (1997). Youth work with high risk: Young drivers VICRoads and RMIT peer education program. In Staysafe 39, Young drivers (pp. 209-217). Sydney: Parliament of NSW. Chen, P.-H., White, H. R., & Pandina, R. J. (2001). Predictors of smoking cessation from adolescence to young adulthood. Addictive Behaviors, 26, 517-529. Chliaoutakis, J. E., Darviri, D., & Demakakos, P. T. (1999). The impact of young drivers’ lifestyle on their road traffic accident risk in greater Athens area. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 31, 771-780. Clarke, D. D., Ward, P., & Truman, W. (2005). Voluntary risk taking and skill deficits in young driver accidents in the UK. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37, 523-529. Cohen, B. H. (1996). Explaining psychological statistics. Melbourne: Brooks Cole. Davey, J., Wishart, D., Freeman, J., & Watson, B. (2007). An application of the driver behaviour questionnaire in an Australian organisational fleet setting. Transportation Research Part F, 10, 11-21. Deery, H. A. (1999). Hazard and risk perception among young novice drivers. Journal of Safety Research, 30, 225-236. DiBlasio, F. A. (1987). Predriving riders and drinking drivers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 49, 11-15. Doherty, S. T., Andrey, J. C., & MacGregor, C. (1998). The situational risks of young
drivers: The influence of passengers, time of day and day of week on accident rates. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30, 45-52.
Durkin, K. (1995). Development social psychology. From infancy to old age. Oxford:
Blackwell. Elliott, M. A., Baughan, C. J., & Armitage, C. J. (2003). Drivers’ compliance with speed limits: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 964-972.
39
Engstrom, I. (2003). Passenger influence on young drivers. In L. Dorn (Ed.)., Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 191-199). Burlington: Ashgate. Evans, L. (1991). Traffic safety and the driver. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Falk, B., & Montgomery, H. (2007). Developing traffic safety interventions from
conceptions of risks and accidents. Transportation Research Part F, 10, 414- 427.
Ferguson, S. A. (2003). Other high-risk factors for young drivers – how graduated
licensing does, doesn’t, or could address them. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 71-77.
Fleiter, J. J., Watson, B., & Lewis, I (2006). Significant others, who are they?
Examining normative influences on speeding. In Proceedings 2006 Australasian Road Safety Research Policing Education Conference, Gold Cost, Queensland, Australia.
Fletcher, R. (1997). Fathers talking to their sons about risky driving. In Staysafe 39, Young drivers (pp. 61-93). Sydney: Parliament of NSW. Freund, P. E. S., & Martin, G. T. (2002). Risky vehicles, risky agents. In J. P. Rothe (Ed.), Driving Lessons: Exploring systems that make traffic safer (pp. 105-122). Alberta: University of Alberta. Glendon, A. I., & Cernecca, L. (2003). Young drivers’ responses to anti-speeding and
anti-drink-driving messages. Transportation Research Part F, 6, 197 – 216. Gras, M. E., Cunill, M., Sullman, M. J. M., Planes, M., & Font-Mayolas, S. (2007). Predictors of seat belt use amongst Spanish drivers. Transportation Research
Part F, 10, 263-269. Greening, L., & Stoppelbein, L. (2000). Young drivers’ health attitudes and intentions to drink and drive. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 94-101. Hair, J. E. Jr., Anderson, R. E.., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate
data analysis, 5th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Harre, N., Field, J., & Kirkwood, B. (1996). Gender differences and areas of common
concern in the driving behaviors and attitudes of adolescents. Journal of Safety Research, 27, 163-173.
Harrison, W. A., Triggs, T. J., & Pronk, N. J. (1999). Speed and young drivers:
Developing countermeasures to target excessive speed behaviours amongst young drivers. Sydney: Monash University Accident Research Centre Report No. 159.
40
Heaven, P. C. L., Caputi, P., Trivellion-Scott, D., & Swinton, T. (2000). Personality and group differences on self-reported delinquent behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 1143-1158.
Hochstetler, A., Copes, H., & DeLisi, M. (2002). Differential association in group and solo offending. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 559-566. Hogg, M. A., & Williams, K. P. (2000). From I to we: Social identity and the collective self. Group Dynamics, 4, 1089-1099. Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology (4th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth. Hwang, S., & Akers, R. L. (2003). Substance use by Korean adolescents: A cross- cultural test of social learning, social bonding, and self-control theories. In R. L. Akers and G. F. Jenson (Eds.), Social learning theory and the explanation of crime: A guide for the new century (pp. 39-63). New Jersey: Transaction. Isaac, N. E., Kennedy, B., & Graham, J. D. (1995). Who’s in the car? Passengers as
potential interveners in alcohol-involved fatal crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 27, 159-165.
Jaccard, J., Blanton, H., & Dodge, T. (2005). Peer influences on risk behaviour: An
analysis of the effects of a close friend. Developmental Psychology, 41, 135-147. James, L. (2002). Dealing with stress, aggression and pressure in the vehicle: Taxonomy of driving behaviour as affective, cognitive and sensorimotor. In J. P. Rothe (Ed.), Driving Lessons: Exploring systems that make traffic safer (pp. 21-49). Alberta: University of Alberta. Jessor, R., Turbin, M. S., & Costa, F. M. (1997). Predicting developmental change in risky driving: The transition to young adulthood. Applied Developmental Science, 1, 4-16. Jonah, B. A. (1997). Sensation seeking and risky driving: A review and synthesis of the literature. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, 651-665. Kobus, K. (2003). Peers and adolescent smoking. Addiction, 98, 37-55. Krohn, M. D., Skinner, W. F., Massey, J. L., & Akers, R. L. (1985). Social learning theory and adolescent cigarette smoking: A longitudinal study. Social Problems, 32, 455-473. Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (2003). Can we trust self-reports of driving? Effects of impression management on driver behaviour questionnaire responses. Transportation Research Part F, 6, 97-107. Lam, L. T. (2003). Factors associated with young drivers’ car crash injury:
41
Comparisons among learner, provisional, and full licensees. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 913-920. Lang, S. W., Waller, P. E., & Shope, J. T. (1996). Adolescent driving: Characteristics associated with single-vehicle and injury crashes. Journal of Safety Research, 27, 241-257. Lawton, R. J., Parker, D., Manstead, A. S. R., & Stradling, S. G. (1997). The role of affect in predicting social behaviour: The case of road traffic violations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1258-1276. Miller, T. R., Spicer, R. S., & Lestina, D. C. (1998). Who is driving when unrestrained children and teenagers get hurt? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30, 839-849. Moller, M. (2004). An explorative study of the relationship between lifestyle and
driving behaviour among young drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 1081-1088.
Nash, J. E., & Brinker, G. D. (2002). Family and friends: How intimate social life contributes to risky driving. In J. P. Rothe (Ed.), Driving Lessons: Exploring systems that make traffic safer (pp. 65-75). Alberta: University of Alberta. O’Connell, M. (2002). Social psychological principles: ‘The group inside the person’. In R. Fuller & J. A. Santos (Eds.), Human factors for highway engineers (pp. 201-215). Oxford: Elsevier. OECD. (2006). Policy brief October 2006. Young drivers: The road to safety. Retrieved 20 January, 2008, from http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/safety/YDpolicyBrief.pdf Parker, D., Manstead, A. S. R., Stradling, S. G., Reason, J. T., & Baxter, J. S. (1992).
Intention to commit driving violations: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 94-101.
Queensland Transport. (2005). 2003 Road traffic crashes in Queensland: A report on the road toll. Brisbane: Queensland Transport. Queensland Transport. (2007). Peer passenger restrictions. Retrieved October 24, 2007, from http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/Home/Licensing/Driver_licence/Getting_a_licence/Car/Restrictions/Peer_passenger_restriction/ Queensland Transport (2009). Young drivers by license status and age. Brisbane:
Queensland Transport. Regan, M. A., & Mitsopoulos, E. (2001). Understanding passenger influences on driver behaviour: Implications for road safety and recommendations for
42
countermeasure development (Monash University Accident Research Centre Report CR180). Canberra: AGPS.
Rice, T. M., Peek-Asa, C., & Kraus, J. F. (2004). Effects of the California graduated driver licensing program. Journal of Safety Research, 35, 375-381. Rimmo, P.-A., & Aberg, L. (1999). On the distinction between violations and errors: Thrill seeking associations. Transportation Research Part F, 2, 151-166. Scheier, L. M., & Botvin, G. J. (1997). Expectancies as mediators of the effects of social influences and alcohol knowledge on adolescent alcohol use: A prospective analysis. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 11, 48-64. Sharpley, D. (2003). Driver behaviour and the wider social context. In L. Dorn (Ed.),
Driver behaviour and training (pp. 381-387). Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Sherman, K., Lapidus, G., Gelven, E., & Banco, L. (2004). New teen drivers and their parents: What they know and what they expect. American Journal of Health
Behavior, 28, 387-397. Shinew, K. J., & Parry, D. C. (2005). Examining college students’ participation in the leisure pursuits of drinking and illegal drug use. Journal of Leisure Research, 37, 364-387. Simons-Morton, B. G., Hartos, J. L., Leaf, W. A., & Preusser, D. F. (2006). The effects
of the checkpoints program on parent-imposed driving limits and crash outcomes among Connecticut novice teen drivers at 6-months post licensure. Journal of Safety Research, 37, 9-15.
Smith, K. (1997). Taking risks, or ignorant of the consequences? In Staysafe 39, Young drivers (pp. 173-176). Sydney: Parliament of NSW. Staysafe 18. (1990). Steering novice drivers toward safety. Sydney: Parliament of NSW. Stewart-Knox, B. J., Sittlington, J., Rugkasa, J., Harrisson, S., Treacy, M., & Abaunza, P. S. (2005). Smoking and peers groups: Results from a longitudinal qualitative study of young people in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 397-414. Sullman, M. J. M. (2006). Anger amongst New Zealand drivers. Transportation
Research Part F, 9, 173-184. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers. TAC. (2007). Young driver statistics 2006. Retrieved 20 January, 2008, from http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/content/NavigationController.do?areaID=13&tierID=2&navID=DFDFC9897F00000100E167850079F07E&pageID=171
43
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2003). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In M. Hogg (Ed.), Social psychology: Vol 4. Intergroup behaviour and societal context (pp. 73-101). London: Sage. (Original work published 1986). Tarrant, M., North, A. C., Edridge, M. D., Kirk, L. E., Smith, E. A., & Turner, R. (2001). Social identity in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 597-609. Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., Mikulincer, M., & Gillath, O. (2005). From parents to children – Similarity in parents and offspring driving styles. Transportation Research Part
F, 8, 19-29. Triplett, R., & Payne, B. (2004) Problem solving as reinforcement in adolescent drug
use: Implications for theory and policy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 617- 630.
Ulleberg, P. (2002). Personality subtypes of young drivers. Relationship to risk-taking preferences, accident involvement, and response to a traffic safety campaign. Transportation Research Part F, 4, 279-297. Vanzetti, N., & Duck, S. (1996). A lifetime of relationships. Melbourne: Brooks/Cole. Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. A. (1998). Introduction to social psychology, 2nd ed. Sydney: Prentice Hall. Watson, B. (2004). How effective is deterrence theory in explaining driver behaviour: A
case study of unlicensed driving. Australasian Road Safety, Research, Policing and Education Conference. Perth, Australia.
Williams, A. F. (2003). Teenage drivers: Patterns of risk. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 5-15. Williams, A. F., & Wells, J. K. (1995). Deaths of teenagers as motor-vehicle passengers. Journal of Safety Research, 26, 161-167. Yagil, D. (1998). Gender and age-related differences in attitudes toward traffic laws and
traffic violations. Transportation Research Part F, 1, 123-135. Zhang, J., Fraser, S., Lindsay, J., Clarke, K., & Mao, Y. (1998). Age-specific patterns of factors related to fatal motor vehicle traffic crashes: Focus on young and elderly drivers. Public Health, 112, 289-295. Zhao, J., Mann, R. E., Chipman, M., Adlaf, E., Stoduto, G., & Smart, R. G. (2006). The impact of driver education on self-reported collisions among young drivers
with a graduated licence. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38, 35-42. Zimbardo, P. G., & Leippe, M. R. (1991). The psychology of attitude change and social influence. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
44
Footnotes
1. Whilst the concept of normative definitions encompasses a range of beliefs and
orientations, the term “attitudes” will be used in this paper to refer to this construct in
order to be consistent with current social psychological terminology (Watson, 2004).
2. Whilst the respondent sample was comprised of all young drivers, that is, aged 17 to
24 years, there is the possibility that age may still have a differential influence upon the
risky behaviours and attitudes reported by these young drivers. It is generally
acknowledged that the psychosocial development of 17 year olds differs to that of 24
year olds (e.g., Vanzetti & Duck, 1996), and it is reasonable therefore to hypothesise
that age will be correlated with risky driving
3. Cultural and media influences were measured by four items each; however they are
excluded from the present analysis due to unsatisfactory internal reliability of these
scales that could not be remedied.
